Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 19:19:25 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 140 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 18:19:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ad64afada295d192aef3513cf0b12aa"; logging-data="3658875"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Zhr+BfarKvhLq3//EUugc" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:A/gbpUfcxqZUlZU5NCGsxNAh770= Bytes: 7855 On 2024-05-26 13:32:08 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/26/2024 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-25 12:09:18 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/25/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-05-24 17:13:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/24/2024 3:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-05-23 13:18:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/23/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-05-22 14:51:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-21 13:54:09 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> You are asking for the definition of correct simulation >>>>>>>>>>> that I have been providing for quite a while recently. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That was not my main intent. I wanted to know why your >>>>>>>>>> statement >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> exludes every unsimulated or incorrectly simulated D? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That sounds like Richard that assumed that incorrect answers are OK >>>>>>>>> unless I specifically say that incorrect answers are not OK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe but I don't promise that the response to the incorrect answer >>>>>>>> will sound the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>  > On 5/19/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>  >> Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of >>>>>>>>>  >> {D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H} >>>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>>  > No, the H that didn't simulate its input shows that >>>>>>>>>  > *once you allow H to not be required to be correct*, >>>>>>>>>  > that we can then have a trivial function that is >>>>>>>>>  > "just as correct" (since wrong answers were allowed). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A c function is correctly simulated when its machine language >>>>>>>>>>> instructions are emulated with an x86 emulator in the order >>>>>>>>>>> that they are specified by the x86 machine language of this >>>>>>>>>>> c function. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does "its machine language instructions" mean all executed instructions >>>>>>>>>> until the progam terminates? Or from the start of the program until >>>>>>>>>> there is no reason to continue? Or from some point to some other point? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It means that 1 to N instructions of D are correctly simulated >>>>>>>>> by pure function H. Because D correctly simulated by H remains >>>>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation D cannot possibly reach is own >>>>>>>>> line 06 and halt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you mean that H cannot simulate D to the line 06 then say so. >>>>>>>> A D that is simulated by H is D and so is a D that is not simulated >>>>>>>> by H so both can do what a D can do. Saying "simulated by H" adds >>>>>>>> nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For non-terminating functions we can only correctly >>>>>>>>>>> simulate N machine language instructions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But does you definition regard that partial simulation as "correct >>>>>>>>>> simulation"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When 1 to 2^64 instructions of D are correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>> it becomes clear that for every H/D pair of the infinite set >>>>>>>>> of H/D pairs D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive >>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you think that the meaning of "correctly simulate" is not >>>>>>>> important you should not use those words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I must use those words or a standard of incorrect simulation >>>>>>> is assumed. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no "standard of incorrect simulation". >>>>>> >>>>>>> We have been going over the term "correct simulation" >>>>>>> in these forums with dozens of people and hundreds of messages >>>>>>> over several years. >>>>>> >>>>>> That alone is a sufficient reaston to avoid the expression. >>>>>> >>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION DEFINED >>>>>>>    In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly >>>>>>>    emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order >>>>>>>    specified by the x86 instructions of D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>    This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the >>>>>>>    order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in >>>>>>>    recursive simulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not a definition but perhaps a suffient substitute for paractical >>>>>> purposes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It provides a clear and correct criterion measure to utterly >>>>> refute each and every reviewer that tries to get away with >>>>> the incorrect emulation of the x86 instructions of H or D or >>>>> emulating them in the wrong order. >>>> >>>> You may call it a "diagnostic criterion" or just a "criterion" but >>>> it does not define anything. Whether it is clear or sufficient is >>>> another problem. >>>> >>> >>> For over two years I had two dozen people unified in consensus >>> continue to insist that a correct simulation of D by H did not >>> require emulating the x86 machine language instructions of D >>> correctly or in the correct order specified by D. >> >> Is the disagreement about the meaning of "correct" or "simulation" >> or some other word, or is the disagreement about correctness of the >> simulation? >> > > A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the > x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions > of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself > emulating D. > > People disagree with the above definition. Then you may ask what other word would be better instead of "simulator". > They believe that a correct > simulation requires H to report on the computation that itself is > contained within: Why should the term "simulation" imply anything about reporting? -- Mikko